Talk:Creationist Views on Australia
Well done, sir! I really enjoyed this one. Lyn Page 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7 | This is pretty good satire: not comical but rather a piece which points out a particular folly of man. |
| Concept: | 8 | Good idea. It's an insightful concept. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | The writing could use some work. |
| Images: | 8 | Appropriate images, and an appropriate number of them. |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | I like this piece. See endnotes for more comments. |
| Final Score: | 37 | |
| Reviewer: | ----OEJ 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |
On prose: You know what to do here. "Sacraficing" is sacrificing; "evidence to Australia's existence" should be "evidence for Australia's existence". That said, I very much applaud the use of specific quotes. That's a stronger technique than paraphrasing. Thank you.
On concept: This piece uses a classical reductio ad absurdum: If extended to its logical extreme, the premise that the Bible contains all knowledge results in a contradiction because the Bible appears to know nothing about things that we humans know physically do exist. ("The Bible is the inerrant...word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." -- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength, page 26). So this piece is not just jokes, it is also real satire. There are obvious counter-arguments, but we can discuss that elsewhere. My point here is that you've written something that is not solely comedy. It has the potential to generate some intellectual heat.
NOT TO SAY IT IS UNFUNNY! "...look at the sky. It is clearly lower than it should be. That is a low sky. God wouldn't make a sky that low." is funny. So is "...actual scientists who have PhDs and inconsistant hair." Those jokes are nicely done.
I might suggest that you think a bit about exactly what you want each part of this article to do. (I'd suggest this in any carefully constructed article, not just the present one...)
For example, many of the quotes from the Bible literalists use the word "fucking": is the intent to show the morally scrupulous losing their scruples when they're angry? Or is it just to portray them as trash-talkers? Where and how can you use this to best effect?
The premise is laid out nicely in the opening quotes and summarized perfectly in the first sentence of the main article. That's a nice bit of work. The following sections then bring up a series of logical ramifications: what about people who've actually gone to Australia? What about the view of Earth from space? What about the science of geography? What do Australians think about not existing? What might a specific Australian do if he took Australia's non-biblical status seriously? Again, this is a solid structure. It's very appropriate to the piece. What you might look at is how these ideas work together in a progression -- are they in the proper order? How might the article flow if the order were changed slightly? Or how could each section be tweaked to lead into -- and thus strengthen -- the succeeding section?
The Bunkhead section is different from the others in that it tells a story about a specific individual (the other sections describe general situations or arguments). You might have a look at that section in textbook storytelling terms: provide appropriate, specific detail; use active verbs; set the scene and describe the action; use direct quotes. You've done a lot of this already, and I applaud your effort. It might benefit from some more careful thought.
Incidentally, I had a look at the article history -- you've done a hell of a lot of work on this piece over the past week. My compliments on putting together a substantial, funny article. ----OEJ 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Hello, This one's been on Pee before. I stuck it on the discussion page of the article. I've modified it since and would appreciate some feedback. Cheers! The Oblong Lobster 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 4 | I knew what to expect: Australia non existé |
| Concept: | 5 | Reccurring thoughts on Australian existence don't work like satire |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | |
| Images: | 7 | |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | |
| Final Score: | 27 | Didn't make me laugh, or even giggle, or even think. At all. |
| Reviewer: | Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN | |
Reviews[edit]
These reviews stink, this article is hilarious and you know it. they're both probably creationist reviewers. The Bunkhead section is genius and irreverent.
GO BACK TO Creationwiki!!! --62.49.195.66 12:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I found this article deeply offensive. I consider myself to be creative, having made several Christmas cards towards the end of last year and often making my own food (aren't microwaves great!). You portray my kind (and other arty-crafty types for that matter) as ignorant and unworldly cretins with no grasp of geography. Not only that, the map is completely wrong - Austria isn't even missing from it!!
Apart from that, I really enjoyed reading this article and will most certainly be reading it again in the future.
...[edit]
This joke has been run into the ground, under the ground, and right now it's reaching the earth's core. You guys are very easily amused... 204.14.13.53 17:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Why thank you very much. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I know what you mean. If there's one more article about Creationists believing that Australia doesn't exist I'm going to scream. mAttlobster. (hello) 21:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I meant this creationism bashing, I dont even believe in it and these articles are still really annoying. They somehow make up 3 out of every 4 articles 204.14.13.53 16:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
America[edit]
America isn't mentioned in the bible either? --Projectmayhem666 11:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's just communist propaganda. Pay it no mind. It's in the NIV. I checked.--<<
>> 22:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Whats the NIV? Is that the mormon crap I hear about? I watched it on South Park where I get all my religious knowledge from. I'm so rebellious I didn't even sign my name the first time bwahaha! --Projectmayhem666 12:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- You know you really should leave the links in when you sign. ~Orian57~
~Talk~ 
14:00 23 February 2009
- this is how it signs? --Projectmayhem666 16:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Ummm...[edit]
I love this piece, but my Christian beliefs mean that I'm not actually standing on ground now, as there is no continent here. Which means I believe I am drowning. Bugger! Pup 03:34, 18/02/2010
A question from an anonymous IP[edit]
doesn't that mean there does not exist anyone to strip the awards from since you can not give an award to somehting that never existed? then again bare me no mind i do not exist either.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.91.9.153 (talk • contribs)